building. at issue is 22 inches. that is what we are talking about. 22 inches is were the original structure was, and that is what now encroaches on the setback. the exit landing is there to provide for the living room to the backyard. we have already poured the rear foundation, and we were hoping to be able to continue on the project. there has been a lot of back- and-forth. we have attempted to work with neighbors. we met with them on several occasions. we suggested neighborhood mediation, which they chose not to participate. there are several members who do

support the project. we do not live in the neighborhood. the key thing from our perspective is in the process of retrofitting the foundation or to and the additional ground floor, we found additional challenges in maintaining that part of the building while digging out to put in those foundations, so that is why we had to take arthur rear part of a building, which is what brought us here today. the project has largely been on hold, and we hope you would help us move forward. >> additional speakers in support of the project sponsor?

>> i am speaking for the project sponsor. i almost had to ask if we were talking about the same address, although i know we are. we are talking about a 246 square for it additional space. a rear of the structure. this was the original structure.

and though the attorney made some suggestions about whether about was to permit it or not -- whether it was permitted or not. the condition of those walls and a fire fighthe fact that the fls continuous, it makes one think it is certainly not new. 5 is part of the reasons for the variances that were requested. the project is not tremendous

debt or tremendous height. git only goes 3 feet behind the existing bridge line, which goes behind the front of the building. the extension but was referred to extend no further when what was existing when the current owner bought their house in 2000. i would be happy to answer other questions if you have to them. >> are there any other speakers in favor of the project sponsor? >> robin and ire of the owners.

-- and i are the owners. it is unfortunate we have met to neighbors who are in opposition. we have neighbors we have built a good rapport with. i just want to say we are excited to move to bernal heights. it is the last thing in our intention to put our neighbors through any hardship and have any disagreement, and we did meet with both of the neighbors who have spoken, and we never said these things were not important to us. we wanted to hear their

perspectives, and we wanted to change hours. goodoned do what we have seen it matches those lining the street, and we intended to do something we feel is similar to those in the neighborhood, and i realize others do not feel about way. we have not tried to do anything misleading or misrepresenting, and that has not been our intention, so thank you. >> and the other speakers in favor? the dr requester has a robotebu.

two minutes. >> i did not hear any response under the special use district. it almost sounds like they are saying the demolition happened by accident. you do not go from this to this by accident. you do not tear down half of the building with an over-the- counter permit by accident. it is not 22 inches. they are requesting a reduction by 10 feet. it is not 22 inches. i do not understand where that comes from. it is not a huge project. these are small lots, but a small amount here.

when it is only 20 feet, if you cut that in half. they are within that distance, too, so that is why the special use district needs to be respected. you heard about meetings and requests. no changes have been made since this was introduced. neighbors were amazed it did happen like this. we need your help. give we need help with respecting the special use district. there are three or four variances needed.

this needs to be reduced in scope. >> you have two minutes. but we will go back to the project item to reagan -- the project item. 22 inches is referring to what the building extension was in 2010, and it extends into the rear yard now. what is proposed in the drawings is a small deck and access stairs. the deck is not 8 feet a little over 4 feet. there is excavation if you come

out of the ground level and go up, so it is 3 low profile in to the rear yard. as far as the variances required, i think staff can address the more, but the bottom line is the rear yard and the non compliance. i believe that is it. >> public hearing is closed. commissioners? commissioner moore: i need to

put on record set december 8 when this project was before us i asked for a continuance because i found the drawings insufficient. i have about in front of me. they are identical. not one particular comment. not one particular item has been revised. the original drawings were issued on june 27 -- on july 27, 2010. gooare would like to suggest --i would like to suggest the letter speaks to these drawings. i did indicate to staff that if this project comes back again, please make sure the drawings are accurate and understandable.

as much as i find the story credible, i believe for this commission to affect them objectively, you out to have a drawing in front of you. i would repeat that again today, and while i am not opposed to the project, i need to understand of property in order to judge it. commissioner antonini: i guess i could ask staff about art. i have some point i am making based on these drawings. i will ask you to comment on what my findings are based on

these drawings, and i assume you believe them to be accurate. the first thing i noticed, if you look of the rear yard comparison, this would bee the very first page, and this is even taking into consideration the rear scarctairs vote dwellig units have. it appears as though 149 sears go further into the rear yard, although possibly the distance of the rear yard is 17 feet, which is less than done colonel-

requirement, -- fund of bernal heights, so it is 2 inches less but almost exactly similar to the house next to it, and the other point suspecthat needs toe brought up, it appears as though they share shed was almost out e same point as the proposed new structure, so we are looking at an existing situation we are bringing back in a more reasonable form. thought was falling down and not very useful, so you are creating one that goes back the same amount of space, but it is taller, but nobody wants a shed

that steps back. >> as defined in the second permanenit, the intent was the second floor, the area under the floor, and doctors were the square footage is made oup, but that was the intent from the beginning. . as they were designing how they wanted it to end up, they got ahead of themselves. part of it was the ability of that area, and it was taken down. >> i understand the history, but you are going back the same

amount, so that is really existing. non-conforming, but existing in. i do not see a problem with that. >> the proposed deck is right here. these are stairs coming down. this is excavated area, so it mayb be someone will find this part unclear, but a lot of what you're looking at here is a grave level. >> the only part that is 15 to

is where the stairs are, which is only a certain part, so you are further back than the fanen, so you are less intrusive. >> staff has told us this would not be approved, but they did not feel that it rises to the level but it should come before the planning commission, so i take that as a strong indicator. the roof is only being raised 3 feet. the whole house is only 1600. it is a family trying to create on home. i do not see any impact on

neighbors. goothere was one comment there might be some privacy concerns and that they are only 30 feet away from where the other house would be, but that is 30 feet more than other houses in san francisco, so i do not see that as being an issue. prior opponents are now in favor of the project. that is what was represented in the literature, so i do not see anything that would cause me to want to take the dr. commissioner sugaya: i have a question. i would like to talk to the owner please.

it is now impossible for us to show where the reader shared extension -- where the rear shed extension ended up. >> the rear yard was identical to where it was previously. but that extended a little bit about both of your neighbors -- >> that extended a little bit across both of your neighbors. >> it would follow a roof of the house. parts i am not asking you a question. there seems to be a disagreement as to how far back the rear wall of the shed expanded.

is it your understanding as building is being built to the exact same get? >> the neighbors tell me it is deeper than it was, and i think that is shown. here is the dr requester house. the real point is once you take it out, you cannot put it back. it is another question, but none of this was here before. it is more than 22 inches. it is a request for 10 feet into the rear yard. none of thought was there. ghraib >> i want to ask another question to the dr requester is themselves. that is your understanding you feel the shed did not go past

your house? >> we are adding a deck. it is going to be towering past us. it was then in a closed area -- it was an enclosed area. >> i am not asking any more questions. i do not want any more answers. gooprice i think it is too vagu, -- >> i think it is too big. you have a non-conforming shed, and you have a proposal that takes it down, and it is going

to be replaced commo, so the c s says what? >> what they have was a shed on stilts. they exceeded the scope of the permit. as a permit was issued in october of 2010. there was a complaint they have exceeded the scope of the permit. the same day they filed to legalize the work. they did increase the height substantially at the rear. it is substantially taller at the rear. there is an additional 4 feet for the deck, so if you have the

encroachment, 22 inches for the building itself, 3 feet 6 inches for the stairs. doug west without variances -- >> without varian says, what would they do? >> they would not be able to do this terrorists -- do the stairs. the variance and would not affect overall height. but as one in -- that is one thing brees doesn't issue. -- raised as an issue. >> there is a little notch on the opposite side, and in the new plans, there is not any

such gesture. should live be required -- should that be required? >> the guidelines recommend a matching lightwell. the neighbor does not have a lightwell. there is an existing open area. the plan is to cover the area, but it does not require a setback. >> i am going to make a motion. i am going to approve the project with the front roofline and rear wall, parallel to the

other adjacent structures. >> i would be 22 inches in the first and second stories. i say it indicates they have already poured the foundation. gooaxe i just want to line up wh these two. >> second. >> sorry. commissioner antonini: it looks as though the adjacent buildings are not out the same amount. when you say you have to match them, they are 2.5 inches.

the actual structure is 2.5 inches further, and it appears they are probably the same or slightly less than the extension, so it has got to be one or the other. this is the rear of their building. it has got to match one of the others. would you say the 145, which is further out? >> i am talking about the actual real wall. >> it looks like now to feet 5

inches. >> the other objection is i do not see a reason to take a heights down. you are saying to make the readr the height of the shed. let's take a look at that. project sponsor, can we talk about about for a second and, -- talk about the for a second? and my vote will depend on whether this works. he wants to bring your roofline even with the front of the structure. is that going to make it possible to have the roof size you have. >> the height will be less. if it is your view it should just be extended to the back of the house, i do not think we

would have an objection. to us the issue was not a roofline. it was the fact we have already done the foundation at the actual structure. that is the thing we are most interested in, because it is fasthe additional 22 inches of s the most important issue to us. >> and that work was done? >> thank you very much. i am not sure if we are getting that much by bringing it back, and i have not heard much comment about the rules. i do not think anybody is getting too upset about. >> of the extension were to remain at a lower level and be brought back 22 inches of the upper level, they could make rules of the -- could make the

roof the landing. it would have less of an impact. and we are seeing the overall height. that would allow them to retain the existing foundation. >> let me be clear about that. we are talking about leaving the foundation as existing, but on the second level coming back. commissioner moore: i still would like to -- [inaudible] >> on the seocnd l -- second level, 22 in